1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 19.6.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue in Revision Case No.R-1528-I/2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby affirmed the order dated 22.2.2013 in Case No.1/12-13/A-12 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Tahsildar, Sheopur District Shoepur rejecting the objections to the demarcation proceedings on the premise that the petitioner is not recorded as Bhumiswami in the land records in respect of the land in question.

2. Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition are to the effect that the petitioner has filed a civil suit seeking injunction in respect of agricultural land falling in Survey No.269/1Ka(3) admeasuring 1.208 hectare situated in village Salapura, Tahsil Sheopur, District Sheopur against private persons only. The trial Court dismissed the said Suit No.152A/2005(sic) (Gyan Das Baba Gurudin Chaturbhuj v. Chandrakanta and others) vide judgment and decree dated 13.1.2006. However, on appeal, the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 13.7.2006 in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2006 has directed that since the plaintiff/appellant found to be in possession, he shall not be dispossessed except by due process of law. The aforesaid decree was passed against the private persons only. The State was not made a party. Upon perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, it appears that there was no contest between the parties.

3. Respondent No.2 recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue record in respect of Survey No.269/1Ka(2) admeasuring 2.090 hectare; adjacent to the aforesaid land to which petitioner claims to be in possession, filed an application for demarcation. Objection was raised by the petitioner in demarcation proceedings on the premise that the land in excess to the ownership of respondent No.2 is being demarcated as part of his land to which he is not recorded as Bhumiswami. The Tahsildar rejected the objection on the premise that for the purpose of inquiry in the proceedings for demarcation under section 129 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') only such persons are required to be noticed and heard who are recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue record. As the petitioner is not recorded as Bhumiswami though claimed to be in possession, he was not found to be party interested in the demarcation proceedings. Accordingly, the objection was rejected. The order passed by the Tahsildar has been affirmed by the Board of Revenue.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner criticizing the aforesaid orders contends that once the petitioner has been found to be in possession in the suit proceeding (Civil Appeal No.12-A/2006 wherein it is ordered that the petitioner be not dispossessed except by due process of law), he is an interested party and, therefore, the Tahsildar and the Board of Revenue have fallen in error having narrowly construed the meaning of 'party interested' as used in section 129 of the Code. Learned counsel further contends that the entry in the revenue record is not of much relevance for the purpose of demarcation proceedings. Therefore, even if the name of petitioner is not recorded as Bhumiswami of the land over which he claims to be in possession, the same shall not come in his way for raising an objection in the demarcation proceedings. It is further contended that the word 'party interested' as used in section 129 of the Code is inclusive in nature and has to be given liberal interpretation so that individual in possession is not subjected to any prejudicial action at the instance of other persons merely for the reason that his name is not recorded as Bhumiswami in the revenue record.

5. Per contra, State's counsel and the counsel for the respondent No.2 contend that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.12-A/2006 (supra) is of no consequence and relevance in view of the fact that the State was not mad